Religions favourite argument

[McBell]

who does your cooking? an agent. who does your shoping? an agent. who does your responding to this thread? an agent. who does create new things on the internet? an agent or several. who talks on the TV? agents. who makes weather forecasts? agents.... who does the weather itself? an agent.

Yawn.
You have not shown that there is any agent doing the weather.
You have merely presented a list of agents and then tossed the weather at the end expecting me to accept the bold empty claim of a weather agent.

 

[Looncall]

who does your cooking? an agent. who does your shoping? an agent. who does your responding to this thread? an agent. who does create new things on the internet? an agent or several. who talks on the TV? agents. who makes weather forecasts? agents.... who does the weather itself? an agent.

One of these things is not like the others. Guess which one?

 

[McBell]

One of these things is not like the others. Guess which one?

I know!
I know!

Pick me!
Pick me!

 

[Looncall]

I know!
I know!

Pick me!
Pick me!

Consider yourself picked!

But, I'll have to remember where I put my gold star stickers.

 

[McBell]

Consider yourself picked!

But, I'll have to remember where I put my gold star stickers.

WHAT!??
no gold star stickers?

Forget it then!

*walks away in pouty huff*

 

[Quintessence]

Enlighten me, please. If there is some particular non-religious bashing rubbish that you find amusing then share your thoughts otherwise you're in the wrong thread and have nothing to say here.

Oh, this one has plenty of things to say, but if the intent of this thread is to bash religious or irreligious perspectives (or rather, alleged perspectives to be more accurate), not only am I disinterested in such a thing, it is not in accordance with the forum's purpose or rules. Gods forbid we go beyond harmful stereotypes and strawpersons to develop a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of one of the most complex aspects of human culture...

 

[viole]

What are your arguments for that the best view is that there are no deities?

I guess, the same I would deploy to show that there is probably no Santa. Or no invisible blue fairies. And a whole lot of things that are still logically possible but have no evidence to make them plausible. The same reasons I would deploy to show that probably no angels are driving the planets in their orbits, or that probably there is no swiss cheese inside Pluto. Etc.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Yawn.
You have not shown that there is any agent doing the weather.
You have merely presented a list of agents and then tossed the weather at the end expecting me to accept the bold empty claim of a weather agent.

Okay how about we change the burden and you prove to me that the weather ISNT caused by an agent.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

I guess, the same I would deploy to show that there is probably no Santa. Or no invisible blue fairies. And a whole lot of things that are still logically possible but have no evidence to make them plausible. The same reasons I would deploy to show that probably no angels are driving the planets in their orbits, or that probably there is no swiss cheese inside Pluto. Etc.

Ciao

- viole

Okay but saying that the claim that there are deities is similar to claiming that there is swiss cheese inside Pluto dont seem to match to me. Cheese, swiss cheese in this case, is a product made by humans on earth. And logically you need humans to create swiss cheese and milk from cows. since there are no humans on pluto it is impossible for swiss cheese existing anywhere on that planet.

 

[viole]

Okay but saying that the claim that there are deities is similar to claiming that there is swiss cheese inside Pluto dont seem to match to me. Cheese, swiss cheese in this case, is a product made by humans on earth. And logically you need humans to create swiss cheese and milk from cows. since there are no humans on pluto it is impossible for swiss cheese existing anywhere on that planet.

And what makes you think that deities are not a product made by humans here on earth?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

And what makes you think that deities are not a product made by humans here on earth?

Ciao

- viole

The fact that they are logically possible. And logical possibilities lie outside mankind and are true regardless of whether there is a single human being in the universe or not.

 

[viole]

The fact that they are logically possible. And logical possibilities lie outside mankind and are true regardless of whether there is a single human being in the universe or not.

I think it is logically possible that quantum entanglement transferred swiss cheese into the interiors of Pluto.

Now what?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

I think it is logically possible that quantum entanglement transferred swiss cheese into the interiors of Pluto.

Now what?

Ciao

- viole

I dont believe that. We disagree. And i think quantum mechanics is bull**** for the most part making really stupid things logically possible when they arent.

 

[viole]

I dont believe that. We disagree. And i think quantum mechanics is bull**** for the most part making really stupid things logically possible when they arent.

You are perfectly free to think that. And to disbelieve what is arguably the most successful theory in the history of science. And believe, or leave the door open, for things that have no evidence whatsoever of being true or even plausible. And that have the same evidence or prediction power of invisble blue fairies.

So, let it be it.

Ciao

- ciole

 

[savagewind]

"you cannot believe until you believe."

You can't believe until you want to.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

You are perfectly free to think that. And to disbelieve what is arguably the most successful theory in the history of science. And believe, or leave the door open, for things that have no evidence whatsoever of being true or even plausible. And that have the same evidence or prediction power of invisble blue fairies.

So, let it be it.

Ciao

- ciole

The problem is that your view of 'evidence' is a naturalistic explanation in itself. making it absolutely impossible to give you 'evidence' of 'gods' because 'gods' arent naturalistic. You also have no respect of the idea that 'gods' exist because of some bias on your part (comparing deities to swiss cheese and blue fairies, whats next? flying pink donkeys?) and therefore it will always appear silly to you no matter how much 'evidence' one gives to you.

 

[viole]

The problem is that your view of 'evidence' is a naturalistic explanation in itself. making it absolutely impossible to give you 'evidence' of 'gods' because 'gods' arent naturalistic. You also have no respect of the idea that 'gods' exist because of some bias on your part (comparing deities to swiss cheese and blue fairies, whats next? flying pink donkeys?) and therefore it will always appear silly to you no matter how much 'evidence' one gives to you.

The problem is what you call "much evidence" usually reduces to "zero evidence".

Ciao

- viole

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

The problem is what you call "much evidence" usually reduces to "zero evidence".

Ciao

- viole

What is evidence, according to you, anyway?

 

[Riverwolf]

Along with many of their arguments and what they believe is proof, my all time favorite is how they look for gaps in science and think AH SCIENCE CANT EXPLAIN X IT HAS TO BE RELIGIOUS!

Ah, the famous "God of the Gaps" argument.

It is understandable behavior, of course. We all do it, to a degree, replacing gaps in our knowledge with various personal suppositions. It's pretty typical human behavior.

Another one I like is "science can't prove there's no god" this obviously works both ways, but the big difference is that science attempts to provide solid proof whereas religion relies solely on faith and very little proof.

Ah, yes, positive belief until the negative can be demonstrated... which I'm pretty sure is fallacious, because the logical default assumption in deduction should always be negative until demonstrably positive.

Nothing wrong with personally believing something when there's no reason not to, of course. Holding a personal belief is not necessarily presenting it as an argument that others must accept.

What's your favorite argument?

I've always chuckled at the various ways I've seen some Omnigod binary-morality monotheists (that is, monotheists who believe in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God, along with a moral system of objective "good" vs "evil") try to get around the Problem of Evil. "God has a plan", "God moves in mysterious ways", "it's all Satan's fault", "humans are all sinful by nature", etc.

'Course, such a thing is actually not terribly common to religion, as most religions (being not Omnigod binary-morality monotheistic) don't even have a problem of evil.

I honestly find anti-religious stuff to be even sillier, especially when it's not even accurate. ...then again, it's not funny when anti-religious historical revisionism actually ends up becoming the accepted common conception of history, as in the Myth of the Flat Earth.

 

[Riverwolf]

who does your cooking? an agent. who does your shoping? an agent. who does your responding to this thread? an agent. who does create new things on the internet? an agent or several. who talks on the TV? agents. who makes weather forecasts? agents.... who does the weather itself? an agent.

Be wary of false patterns.

Our brains evolved to detect specific types of patterns everywhere, particularly patterns of human appearance and behavior. Problem is, that comes with a bit of a... quirk, in that we start instinctively detecting faces on Mars where none exist, and human/human-like agency where none exists.